A speech by comrade Blake P. on the Cuban Five

"What does it mean to be free? In our world which has so often seen freedom destroyed in its own name, we've been given plenty of answers. According to many of our leaders, to be free from terrorists is to harass Arab-Americans. It is to stereotype Muslims and to infiltrate places of worship. In other words, to save ourselves from terrorism, they tell us that we must in turn terrorize one another. To be free from invasion and foreign conquest, they tell us, we must in turn invade and conquer nations from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq. To make sure an empire never rises, we must become that empire.

So we are told. But I don't believe it. I don't think you do, either.

I once spoke about flag desecration. How the most repugnant form of flag desecration is to plant our nation's banner over burning homes and demolished nations. Today I want to say it again. Our flag is being desecrated. And out of all the blockades, wars, smears, and acts of repression, there is one I want to speak about in detail, and that is the case of the Cuban Five.

From it's beginning, revolutionary Cuba has faced the worst brand of terrorism and hostility against her. Her economy is in a choke-hold and her people are poor from fifty years of a unanimously condemned trade embargo. She has been subject to the worst smears and slander on the part of her enemies. And she has faced terrorism, genuine terrorism, from hostile forces based in Miami.

In 1976, a CIA-backed plot executed by Luis Posada and Orlando Bosch, among others, succeeded in freeing 73 people aboard a Cuban plane from communism, by freeing them from their lives. US intelligence records confirmed having knowledge of the plan's conception before it was carried out, but declined to act on it. Today, Bosch lives comfortably on our own soil, while Posada faces prosecution, not for his heinous act of mass-murder, but for entering the country illegally. There are no plans to bring either to justice

Having suffered so many of these attacks, the people of Cuba fought back. And coming to the call were five men. Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González, and René González. These were men with families. The were fathers. Husbands. Soldiers. In the 1990's they volunteered to infiltrate and report on anti-Cuban terrorist groups in Miami, providing Cuba with the information it needed to keep its people safe. But in 1998, the five were arrested and put in a kangaroo court, to stand trial for the viscous misdeed of resisting mass murder. All five were convicted and are being held in various prisons across the country on life sentences, away from there families, friends, and homes for thirteen years. They receive no uncensored mail, two have not even seen their wives since their arrest, and all have endured the brutality of our prison system in the form of solitary confinement and mistreatment in spite of spotless conduct behind bars. Perhaps to defend justice, we must engage in injustice? Is this what our leaders would tell us?

I still don't believe that.

If we are to call our nation the land of the free. If we are to declare our country to be governed by democracy and the rule of law. If we are to be a refuge for peacemakers and freedom fighters worldwide, we must remove the plank from our own eye before removing sawdust from another. We can stand on a platform and criticize other nations, but I'm ready for self-criticism. I'm ready to make real the promise, make true the dream, make right the wrong! Before I ask China to release her political prisoners, I want to free ours. Because when it comes to human rights, charity starts at home. Free the five."

The Communist Party of the United States of America condemns the bombings in Libya

Libya: Stop the bombing, cease-fire now

The Communist Party of the USA deplores the attacks by U.S., French and British forces against Libya. With the projection of power by U.S. and other NATO governments, the crisis that was initiated by the government of Libya when its security forces opened fire on unarmed demonstrators calling for democratization stands a chance of turning into a full fledged civil war with sustained imperialist intervention.

With a bold, self-serving interpretation of the U.N. Security Council's vote on March 17, several member states of NATO, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France, have begun an air and sea bombardment of Libya, increasing the danger of civilian and military casualties on all sides, and threatening the integrity of Libya as a sovereign nation in control of its own resources.

While French and British jets have pounded away at Libyan targets, the United States in the first day hit Libya with at least 100 ship-launched tomahawk missiles, with no end in sight.

In spite of the all-too-evident crimes and abuses of Gadaffi's regime, a civil war with massive foreign intervention is not in the interests of the either the Libyan or the American people, or humanity in general, which is served only by peace and cooperation among the nations. The Middle East area is one of the most conflict-ridden and unstable in the world, and there is real danger that a civil war in Libya could lead to a wider conflagration.

This situation needs to be deescalated, also, because of the bad precedent it sets for NATO and/or U.S. intervention in situations of internal conflict all over the world. We have only to recall the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia to perceive how such military interventions, carried out under humanitarian pretexts, end up causing more death, suffering and destruction than the situations they were supposed to remedy.

In its recent meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, NATO announced to the world that it would be projecting armed force well beyond the "North Atlantic" area. Clearly, the purpose of this force is neither defensive nor humanitarian, but rather serves the economic interests of the wealthy capitalist countries and multinational corporations.

To understand the hypocrisy of the current attack campaign, we have only to ask: Why no intervention in any of the other Middle East countries ruled by tyrants and currently undergoing popular uprisings? Why not in Yemen, or Bahrain?

We are of the opinion that the special interest on the part of imperialism in intervening in Libya can only relate to the politics of oil. Libya is a major supplier of oil to several of the NATO countries (especially to Italy), and has run its own nationalized oil production since 1969.

The current uprising in Libya is centered in the Eastern part of the country, where a large proportion of Libya's oil production is also to be found. For the NATO powers to end up in substantial control of Libya's oil production, even if it is not privatized into the hands of multinational corporations, might have an impact on things like OPEC production quotas.

As it is, the instability in Libya is contributing to a rise in oil prices that affects us in the United States as well.

In addition, the fall of client regimes of Tunisia and Egypt, and the shakiness being experienced by others in the region such as Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco and others, weakens the influence of imperialism in this vital area. We can't exclude the possibility that imperialism sees the Libya crisis as a means to restoring part of its influence in the Middle East.

Several states and international organizations, some of which voted for the Security Council Resolution, or abstained when they might have voted "no" or even vetoed it, are now having second thoughts about the wisdom of the actions currently being taken. China, Russia, Turkey, India and the Arab League, as well as the Bolivarian Alliance countries in Latin America have all criticized the attacks on Libya.

We hope that the U.S. government, which was not originally enthusiastic about taking military action to create a no-fly zone in Libya, will have such second thoughts also.

Therefore, the CPUSA calls for:

1. An immediate cease-fire by all parties concerned (the Libyan government, the insurgents and outside powers), to be monitored by neutral forces.

2. A negotiated settlement which preserves Libya's national sovereignty and control of its natural resources, especially its oil and gas reserves and production, while answering the demands of the Libyan people for a democratic transformation of their society and political system, and an end to repression of dissent.

3. Protection for the safety of vulnerable sections of the population of Libya, including foreign migrant workers trapped in a situation not of their making.

4. International action to permit the exit from Libya of refugees whose survival is threatened by the current situation, plus access to humanitarian aid for all areas of Libya, and the restoration of electrical, internet and other services.

5. Support by all progressive people for the struggle of the Libyan people for labor rights, free and democratic elections, freedom of speech, press and association and an end to repression.

"What's the Problem with Secession?"

A fascinating article by Dennis Laumann, detailing the issue of secession as it pertains to the southern Sudanese. It's truly a fantastic read.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/what-s-the-problem-with-secession/